Investment Treaty Arbitration meaning

The Czech Republic v Diag Human SE and another [2024] EWHC 708 (Comm) What are the practical implications of this case? The judgment offers practical guidance on how the ‘reasonable diligence’ condition in AA 1996, s 73(1) operates. It warns parties in arbitration to remain vigilant to unfolding factual matters that may demand further enquiry, in order to satisfy the ‘reasonable diligence’ requirement and maintain an arguable case that is not rendered time-barred under AA 1996, s 73(1). It also emphasises the elevated duty of care owed by investment arbitration practitioners when advising clients in arbitral proceedings, so as to avoid claims of insufficient diligence in the conduct of jurisdictional challenges before the tribunal. What was the background? ...

Honduras rejects the ICSID Convention In recent weeks, Honduras announced it would repudiate the international treaty under which it consented to submit disputes to the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSD), better known as the ICSID Convention. The move followed the country being hit last year with nine distinct ICSID claims, among them a politically charged action brought by a US-based developer seeking up to US$10.7bn in compensation. Honduras now mirrors three other Latin American states that have denounced the ICSID Convention: Ecuador, Bolivia and Venezuela. Across Europe, parliament have also been keen to jettison investment arbitration in favour of a new investor court, promising reforms they believe could rebalance a regime that critics often say tilts towards investors. India, South Africa and New Zealand have likewise taken steps in recent years to curb their exposure to investor–state disputes, so at first sight it may seem these Latin American moves are part of a worldwide revolt against investor–state arbitration. Yet that impression would overlook a...

In this issue: Contract law Building safety Litigation Arbitration Tax for construction lawyers Standard form contracts Construction industry news Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Construction trackers Contract law Employer deemed out of time in issuing a notification on the Monday after a Sunday deadline (My Contracts v 74 Hamilton Terrace) In My Contracts Ltd v 74 Hamilton Terrace Freehold Ltd [2024] EWHC 2896 (TCC), the TCC issued a declaration at the contractor’s request concerning the construction of a clause that imposed a deadline for the employer to notify costs for which the contractor was responsible. The court concluded the employer missed the deadline by serving the notice on the Monday immediately after the final day for service, which had fallen on a Sunday. Central to the decision was that the clause made no provision for the period to be calculated by reference to ‘Business Days’. See News Analysis: Employer...

This Practice Note provides an introduction to the overall structure of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Arbitration Rules (the UNCITRAL Rules). The UNCITRAL Rules occupy a significant role in contemporary arbitration practice. They are crafted for ad hoc international commercial arbitrations—proceedings not administered by an arbitral institution and, typically, not conducted under that institution’s rules. The Rules may likewise be employed in investor–state arbitrations commenced under a treaty, such as a bilateral investment treaty, where the treaty permits arbitration conducted under those rules. Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, the UNCITRAL Rules govern arbitration agreements concluded on or after 15 August 2010, ie the date the revised Rules took effect. The earlier 1976 UNCITRAL Rules continue to apply to all arbitration agreements entered into before that date. Both the 1976 and 2010 UNCITRAL Rules are separate from UNCITRAL’s Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, adopted in 1985 and revised in 2006, which has been adopted (often with modifications) by more than 50 jurisdictions—see Practice Note: The UNCITRAL...

What is the SCC? The Stockholm Chamber of Commerce Arbitration Institute (SCC) sits within, yet operates autonomously from, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce. The Institute was founded in 1917. In the 1970s, the United States and the Soviet Union recognised the SCC as a neutral centre for resolving trade disputes. As a result, it remains a preferred venue for East/West cases, that is, disputes involving one or more parties from North America or Europe and one or more parties from Russia, China, or states of the former Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Over the past 25 years, filings at the SCC have grown substantially, and the institution has become one of the most important and most frequently used arbitration institutions globally. The SCC’s latest statistics can be found on its website (see also Practice Note: Arbitration statistics and surveys). The SCC manages a wide range of domestic and international commercial arbitration matters and is also a well‑recognised forum for bilateral investment treaty disputes. Around 50% of SCC...

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note is archived and no longer maintained. For the 2019 tracker, refer to Practice Note: Investment treaty arbitration—2019—key arbitral awards and decisions tracker [Archived]. This Practice Note records details of notable awards and determinations issued by tribunals in investment treaty arbitration matters, chiefly those run by the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). It also includes pertinent awards and decisions from proceedings under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules and those overseen by other arbitral bodies, including the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce (SCC), the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Although investment treaty arbitration has no recognised doctrine of precedent, earlier rulings are frequently invoked by parties and considered by arbitral tribunals in their decisions. This Practice Note features only awards and decisions made public in 2018, though in some instances they may have been issued to the...